Here’s my thoughts on this:
1) The DF-21 anti-carrier missile is a red herring...a classic Sun Tsu misdriection operation where the talk and thought of such a weapon is meant to invoke an over-reaction by the adversary (us) as if though the weapon in fact is in place and ready...when there is not one shred of proof in existance to support its actual existance and operational status. There has not been one operational live fire test of this missile. In order to create this sophistiacted weapon, the Chinese will have to have breakthroughs in their C4, their surveillance and recon, in their target acquisition, in their guidance, their manuevering and in ECM. All of this to find with relatively scanty intelligwnce and target lock, a carrier, launch on it from 2000+ miles away, to reacquire the target on rentry when the vessel may have moved seversal miles (and depneding on where it moved, may make the manuever impossible...and then to guide onto the target in a heavy ECM and anti-ballistic missile environment. Testing for such a system to work out all of the bugs would take years...and there has not been one live test...ergo, the system does not exist.
2) If the Chinese were able to sink/destroy a US carrier by whatever means (and I am not talking a mission kill here) the US response would not be tit for tat. it would be overwhelming and disporportional. it would tagt the C&C (decision makers for the attack) the C4, the ability for the PLAN to wage major war (meaning all of their major combatants including all three LPDs, their new carrier, and their eight very modern DDGs) as well as the shipyards that build them. it may include a large portion of their commerc ial shipping as well to hurt htem economically.
3) If the method of destruction in step 2 were nuclear, it would simply ensure as extreme a version of number 2 as possible, potetnially including tactical nuclear weapons for the military targets away from population centers.
That’s how I see it after over a decade of research.
If an American President and people did not have the will to do that in the face of that level of aggression, then we can kiss off the Western Pacific because the Chinese would obviuosly at that point be willing to risk it, and our allies and other nations in the region would not be able to depend on us to help in their own defense.
The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/
...If an American President and people did not have the will to do that in the face of that level of aggression, then we can kiss off the Western Pacific because the Chinese would obviuosly at that point be willing to risk it...
Damn fine analysis.